Page 1925 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.26): It is certainly an occasion for agreeing with much of what Mr Mulcahy has said. However, before I commence I would like to remind him that the Greens have also called for the Costello report. I think he was trying to make an imputation that was incorrect. Also, what Mr Mulcahy likes to call ideology I would call a transparent charter of principles. I will show you mine; how about you show me yours?
The Rates Amendment Bill 2006 provides for the introduction of levies as a part of the rates charging process. In my view, we are a little out of order in passing it now before the estimates process and the real examination of the budget. However, if we were to presume that the bill would be passed with levies as proposed, then the fact that these provisions were not factored in at the start of this next financial year would create problems. Therein lies the beauty of being a majority government. That is why this Assembly will pass a bill before having the essential substantive debate on its impact and appropriateness in the budget context.
I will make a few brief points now and revisit the issue when addressing the budget proper. Increasing rates, charges and taxes and introducing levies is never a popular move but sometimes it has to happen. In that way I do not agree with the Liberals getting on the white stallion on behalf of the community as though it is always wrong to increase rates, charges and taxes and introduce levies. It is an essential way of raising revenue for the government, but it is also an economic tool. I will address that a bit later on.
Having apparently bitten the bullet on wholesale changes to revenue and expenditure patterns, this budget was a chance to direct those changes to achieving social environmental outcomes. I do not believe that that has happened. I wonder if this levy has been put in place to cover costs arising from legal fees, damage control induced panic and an overenthusiasm for emergency serves in the light of the biggest failure of community protection in the territory’s history.
I note there are no levies relating to a failure to achieve sustainable building outcomes and lower energy and water consumption. That is not true because there is an increase in charges for water. There are no levies on high-emission cars and there are no levies to subsidise the inclusion of affordable and social housing in major developments.
I am not arguing that the impost of levies is the answer to our social and environmental problems, but it is an important economic tool. In the real budget debate and through the estimates process, I will pursue a more nuanced approach to achieving better social and environmental outcomes through revenue raising methods including, but not limited to, levies and concessions. Unfortunately, with the budget before us and in this bill the government has shown itself two parts short of the triple bottom line.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .